User talk:GoodDay/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 49

Tim Houston - multiple reversions

Hi GoodDay. By repeatedly reverting the Tim Houston article, with edit summaries like "it's over, lad", you're not following WP:CIVIL. Also, as the edit you're reverting is controversial, please provide a citation for the "premier-designate" term that seems to be in question. Cheers, have a good night SECProto (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@SECProto: CBC news has been using the term. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Great! Please provide a citation in-line, as you're the one who wants to include the term in the article. SECProto (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You didn't watch the election on CBC news? GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe "editor stated he saw it on TV" is a valid citation. Reviewing a topline CBC article [1], it doesn't refer to him as the premier-designate. I've reverted the edit until an appropriate citation for the term can be found. SECProto (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Whatever, he's the premier-designate & he's going to become premier of Nova Scotia, sometime in late August/early September. So if you want to be argumentative over something that's going to happen? that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Disappointed

This is extremely disappointing. We were starting to cooperate and doing very well, or so I thought, and then you decide to revert all the edits without any prior warning, despite the agreement to wait to see if there are any objections, and despite there having been no deadline. How can I ever trust you again? Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There was a rejection, at 2021 Canadian federal election & I'm not overly in favour of unbolding. You had enough days to complete the task, so I figured you merely abandoned the idea entirely. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: If you're not still angry at me. You may want to chime in at Mass images/sections removal discussion. There's a growing number of editors, objecting to the section removal idea. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Consistency making opportunity

A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations#Lead_sentences has resulted in the consensus that redundant lead sentences should be removed from international relations articles. There are hundreds (possibly thousands) of these. There is also a list here. It will take me months to edit all of them, meaning months of... inconsistency. Any help would be much appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, I'll do what I can. In the meantime, I'll let you handle the US presidential primaries articles, as I'm not overly good at re-writing intros. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. The relations intros do not need overwriting, only simple deleting, but the sheer number of them means that perseverance is needed, and I am not good at that. Surtsicna (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll take me awhile, particularly with the better known countries. Fortunately, I've been running into mostly 'red-links' :) GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

PS - To keep my sanity. I'll do a country block, per day. Tomorrow, will be the Armenia relations articles, the next day Australia relations, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I have been doing it. Unfortunately, I think I lost my sanity half-way through the A's. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GoodDay, glad my list is also of service to you as well. Please be aware no U.S. relations articles are listed as stated at the top of the page, but the issue of the sentence redundancy still exists on U.S. foreign relations as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :) GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: It seems when I goof up (see below), I tend to get a figurative anvil dropped on me. So, I'm abandoning the articles-in-question & letting others implement the WP:AVOIDBOLD & WP:REDUNDANCY there. See The Welsh Year articles, as another example. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have rewritten the intros of the Canadian federal elections from the Canada Act 1982 to the most recent. I'm thinking of letting it simmer for a while to see if there is any opposition and then complete the set. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we should keep the Year Canadian federal election in the intro of those articles. However, if nobody else is objecting to the removals or reverting? I shall let it be. I'm guessing you'd find stronger resistance on the US presidential election articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Surtsicna:, I've done the same at the intro of 44th Canadian federal election, which is being heavily watched, as it's about to be called (and thus moved to 2021 Canadian federal election). If the intro change isn't reverted there? you'll likely be safe with all the others. After that, you next step would be all the provincial & territorial election intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Australia

"Prime Minister of Australia" is the title of the role. Used in the first sentence at that point it is entirely appropriate to capitalise it. Please stop editing Australian articles that you don't know anything about. I should note we have already had this discussion ad nauseum earlier in the year. Deus et lex (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning Australian articles, I don't appreciate your tone at this moment. They are not limited to being edited by Australians. PS: Would you please clarify your position at the RFC I mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deus et lex: Go over to WP:JOBTITLES & introduce your argument on how the Australian government officials should be exempt from lower-casing, in the intros. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Greetings!

Greetings GoodDay! As you are an experienced editor and have been cooperative with me since few days, I want to bring your attention to the article Monarchy of Pakistan, where DrKay has been edit warring with an absurd and non-sense logic that monarchy was not the "system of government". I then gave a source which said that "constitutional monarchy is a system of government", and even asked them to not revert and discuss the matter, but they continued with their edit warring. If I were edit warring like him, I would've been blocked. Even a child knows that monarchy is a system of government and also, majority of the Commonwealth realm articles have the phrase "is a system of government" in the lead. Other arguments can be seen in the edit history. Please look into this matter. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 12:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the Maverick Party's infobox be 338 seats instead of 107?

Hey.

Just recently we had that little argument on how the Bloc Québécois should show 338 seats instead of 78 in the infobox. I'm wondering if the Maverick Party should also show 338 seats instead of 107? What are your thoughts? Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06:The Maverick Party should have 0/105 & 0/338, as well. I've made the changes there & brought it up at WP:CANADA for a review. Thanks for pointing it out. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW - I had to make a run through of all the registered federal parties infoboxes. Putting the Senate above the House & removing provincial wing parties. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Whoops, thanks for the correction. Self-reverted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife:, no prob. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

IP harassment

FYI I have blocked that IP for harassment and edit warring. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It is 100% inappropriate to taunt a blocked user as your did here. See Wikipedia:Gravedancing. This is the exact sort of harassment that the IP was blocked for. Leave them alone or you will get a similar block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I've already had enough of that editor & moved on. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

...and it continues.

@HiLo48:, I can understand why in the past, you'd often get angry with a certain editor. There's just something arrogant & overbearing about his approach to this project. Ok, I've ranted enough & it's alright if you don't want to respond. GoodDay (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MoS RfC closure challenge: job title capitalization in infoboxes. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Your recent editing history at David Hurley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood @Nick-D:, but wish the other editor would get a consensus before adding to said article. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

PS, I'll leave the warning here for 24 hrs, rather then delete it, like the other fellow did at his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry @Nick-D: about he & I taking over your talkpage. PS - Can't you banish him to the Phantom Zone? GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Banned user

You're almost certainly correct in your suspicion that I'm getting wikistalked — somebody just registered a brand new username, "Bearmutt", just to leave a snarky message criticizing me over on the Simple English Wikipedia instead of here. So I don't know whether it's a banned user, or an active editor who's just trying to keep their powder dry by logging out or creating alternate fake usernames so that they can't have their attacks linked back to their real identity, but either way somebody's definitely playing games and actively looking for ways to try to get me into trouble. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat:, this has to be thought out. Do you recall any registered editor, that was in a recente heated discussion with you, or an editing spat? GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did a reverse IP lookup on the IP number and it resolved to Teksavvy, so it's definitely a Canadian. So one possibility might be Zanimum because of this, but I don't think there's enough evidence to take that for certain off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: The article that was eventually deleted. Was it an article that he created & did a lot of work on? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that you've mentioned Simple Wikipedia. There's an Australian editor (who I've been at logger heads with), that I wish would transfer himself to that place. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder, if I successfully had Australian head of state dispute deleted, what would that article's agenda pushing creator do. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Poorly sourced, predominantly synthesis; fails WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTESSAY. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Given my personal history with the article's creator. It would be better & look less biased, if another editor nominated it for deletion. The Australians made their decision in the 1999 Australian republic referendum, as to who their head of state was. IMHO, the article was merely created to promote its creator's PoV. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

Hi, I noticed that you recently edited the Justin Trudeau Wikipedia article. Please read the Justin Trudeau talk page, and join the discussion. Thank you,Peerreviewededitor (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

We should review all additions for NPOV.--Moxy- 11:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of DS

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: if this concerns 2022 New York gubernatorial election (which I mistakenly thought was under 1 RR)? I've opened a discussion there. So far, the other editor has ignored that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have just placed that article under a 1RR restriction due to a lot of reverting going on there over the last few weeks. I just did this and it does not cover your recent reverts.

I have given the DS notice to the people who have reverted most recently on that article so that they are aware of the sanctions in place. Other than having reverted the article recently there is nothing about your behavior there that has caught my attention. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No probs @HighInBC:, I only hope my main disputer will accept my compromise edit & learns A) to indent properly & B) leave a message on a user's talkpage (i.e the bottom) properly. GoodDay (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop

This is an obsession. It's over ten years already and there are an infinite amount of edits that you made trying at any cost to remove non-English names. It's not even a pattern, it's an obsession and perhaps something far worse. I'm going to warn you now to stop with your petty crusade or I'll take measures against your anti-foreignness stance on Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lecen: At the moment, I'm more into finding out why Pedro wasn't in the Portuguese succession. The RFC at his father's article, can deal with the English/Portuguese langue issue. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, if you weren't so hostile on those articles. We'd get along better. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, be careful accusing anybody of having an "anti-foreign" stance. PS - You're only 'again' showing your ownership issues. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I'm no angel & sometimes I mess up. But honestly, isn't Lecen going a tad overboard, here? GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Surely the article text should reflect the title of the linked article. If, here at en.wikipedia.org, that is in English, for WP:COMMONNAME or other reasons, then the article text should also be in English. Similarly, one would expect to find the Portuguese name, João VI de Portugal, at pt.wikipedia.org, and ジョアン6世 (ポルトガル王) at ja.wikipedia.org; and one does indeed find both article titles in the languages of those wikipedias. As Mateus 22:21, would have it: “Então, dêem a César o que é de César e a Deus o que é de Deus”. - Ryk72 ^talk 01:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Imagine, having British monarchs at Portuguese language Wikipedia linked in english? Betcha they ain't. Definitely a double standard. But I guess, there's the fair way & there's Lecen's way. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Aye, Isabel Aye, Jaime. - Ryk72 ^talk 01:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, but you can't tell Lecen, that. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, neither Prionnsa Teàrlach Stiùbhart, nor Carlo Edoardo Stuart - Ryk72 ^talk 01:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, terrible. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

By parts:

• 1) I have no control over what happens in Portuguese Wikipedia and I don’t edit there.
• 2) If kings and princes’ names are in Portuguese there, it’s because the Portuguese editors forced that. In Brazil, we call queen Elizabeth and prince Charles or prince Harry, not Isabel, Carlos or Henrique, the latter would be dumb in my opinion. Having a king “Jorge” next to a William Churchill.
• 3) Calling your friends to gang up against me is stupid.
• 4) I think you’re a useless editor. You have done nothing positive for this encyclopedia. Nothing.
• 5) I don’t want to get along with you. You’ve shown repeatedly to have prejudice towards foreigners and I’d be glad to show all the links to that in a proper discussion. --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is ganging up on you. It's just that it's very difficult to collaborate with you, on those two articles. For what ever reason, you've a bad temper & you're too quick to pounce. Also, you have no clue about me. I could be Aboriginal descent, French descent, Portuguese descent, etc. So maybe you should 'stop' with your assumptions. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

But let's get back to the content dispute. Why won't you open up RMs for all the Portuguese monarchs, up to John VI? It's been nearly 10 years now, since the last ones. A side note: Doesn't it ever occur to you, that an english-only language reader, may not be able to read or pronounce the Portuguese version of John VI? That's not me being anti-foreigner. That's me trying to get you to look at the topic from an english-only reader's PoV. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a look at opening some RMs. Will start with John VI and work from there; ping you both if I can't work out which monarchs. (I would pronounce it "Xiao", similar to "小" in "小龍包", which is probably utterly incorrect). - Ryk72 ^talk 02:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Me? An anti-foreigner? My ancestry is from North America, South America, Africa & Europe. I'm a living product of different races having come together in love & peace. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

I think I’ll use my account. Btw, rest aside, do you think the sources I mentioned are solid-enough? KosomPolskii (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I can file a Freedom of Information, that might be better? KosomPolskii (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait until others have chimed in at both RFCs on that article, before I participate. Meanwhile, be grateful that I'm not angered by the (now closed) WP:ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I just didn’t like that comment. Still, do you think Wikipedia will accept a freedom of information report as a source? KosomPolskii (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You'll have to ask an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright KosomPolskii (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@KosomPolskii: Why have you stopped using your account, again? GoodDay (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Grateful for your thoughts on how we might be able to address a glaring inconsistency on this website, that literally every single previous political incarnation of a country is referenced in infoboxes for birth and death places (even political states that existed for tiny periods of time), but any attempt to be consistent and do the same in articles for people born in the UK (and its predecessor states) is inevitably overturned. Whilst I appreciate that the wider debate around the inclusion of UK in modern articles is a tricky one, it does seem to me that this one is inarguable. It is only articles in the UK that have this done to them, and that seems entirely wrong. Any thoughts on how we can get this fixed? Vaze50 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vaze50: TBH, there's no way to fix it, if enough editors continue to oppose the addition of UK to the British bios. There's a lot of quirks on this project. For example: In NHL roster templates, Canada & United States aren't used as birthplaces & they're the 'only' exception there, among sovereign states. Indeed, there's inconsistencies within American & Canadian bios themselves, as whether or not to use "Canada" & "United States or US" in the infoboxes. But, back to the British bio infoboxes? Trying to persuade those editors to accept the addition of the UK? wouldn't be as easy as having gotten the Berlin Wall torn down or Communism overthrown in eastern Europe. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A side note: To make yourself feel better? Put a big on your usepage, with the message below "I'm proud to be British", or something along those lines. They can't deny you that. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I like your positive advice on this item. well said!! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 18:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Note to say hello

Hi there. just dropping by to say hello. I took your advice from a while back, and it has helped a lot. thanks! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 18:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You've got me at a disadvantage. What advice whas that? GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it was a general suggestion to focus upon WikiGnome tasks? It is possible that I may have confused the source of that advice, but I think it may have been from you. either way, nice to see you here!! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 18:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes. Gnoming can be enjoyable & less stressful, once you get into the habit :) GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

well said!! well, here is a WikiCookie, to help in your gnomish work.

enjoy! see you! ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 19:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Deputy PM rename

Just wanted to say thanks for following up/pushing for renaming Deputy Prime Minister of Canada. The inconsistency with MOS:JOBTITLES annoyed me but I did not want to go through the drama of opening that discussion. —WildComet ^talk 04:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem @WildComet:. I was quite relieved to see that the proper outcome, occurred. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Captains and alternate captains

Here's the issue, Kyle Okposo and Brandan Sutter have not been with their current team their entire career, yet it's still shaded in grey, indicating that they were with the team for their entire career. I'm just fixing what needs to look right so it's not deceptive.

Good catch. Reverted to 'white background'. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Library and Archives Canada Robert Stanfield image

Hello, this may seem pretty irrelevant and random but I am seeking help from other Canadian editors on Library and Archives Canada.

I am wondering what license this image is under, and I am wondering how to find the license of this image on the website. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3408575 Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh you got me there. I've no knowledge about what is & isn't licensed, concerning images. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Concerning yours revision on List of vice presidents in 2021

First of all I have to thank you for correcting typing mistakes. Regarding the substantive changes, this involves some talks Afganistan - in fact the government of Islamic Republic no longer exists, not even virtual. On the other hand, usualy, when a vice-president become president, in any way this action would occur, he is considered to have completed his term. Yemen - the objective reality is that there are two competing administrations, even if one has only limited international recognition. Although, not to say more, I have no sympathy for Houti, objectivity requires me to mention the position in this administration equivalent to that of vice-president. Vacancies - as I have seen in the other annual lists of political positions, if after one of the incumbents is mentioned the year of termination of office and the following holder is not mentioned, is assumed that the position is vacant. The vacancy mention is used only if the position which are not filled during the whole year. I complied with these conventions in this list. On the other hand I am very interested in your opinion about vice-presidents of Syria (talk on Current vice presidents) Bogdan Uleia (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't beat the wave

Alas, @ButterSlipper:, @Bus stop: & @TillermanJimW:, I tried to defend you all by lessening your blocks or coming blocks. But, couldn't succeed. Each of you had tons of energy & spirit. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Year in Wales

You seem to have misread the result of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RFC:_Incumbent_section_of_'Year_in_place'_articles. There was no consensus for adding the monarch of the United Kingdom, which you began doing without consultation. Please remove all those you added. Deb (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: There was no consensus to not add them either. I'm adding, as they're already in the England, Scotland & Northern Ireland Year articles. I invite you to open up an RFC on all those articles, with just two options. Keep or Delete the British monarch. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please remove them immediately until such time as you have support for this change. Deb (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Only if you promise not to restore the prince & princess of Wales to them. There was definitely a consensus to delete them. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Star Trek (disambiguation)

Regarding your message on my talk page: please see WP:PARTIAL. The disambiguation page is not meant to be an index of everything in the franchise. In this case, both the original series and the animated series were referred to as just Star Trek. If you have any other concerns, feel free to send another message to my talk page. jhsounds (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe TNG & the movie Wrath of Khan, would have more notability. GoodDay (talk)

You've proven my point precisely. Neither TNG nor WoK are commonly named just Star Trek, and are instead referred to by their subtitles. Disambiguation is therefore not needed. jhsounds (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with you (as they all begin with the name Star Trek), but I'm not going to get into an edit-war over it. So, moving on from it. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Constitutions

Not sure if I'll throw my tuppence at that article, but appreciate your voice of reason there. As far as preceding constitutions go, I'd've simply said that the UK still doesn't have one. And that neither bill of rights nor de populo seem necessary conditions. - Ryk72 ^talk 08:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's two strong personalities clashing, over at that article. Meanwhile, why did DrKay revert my change at Elizabeth II's article? She must realise that (even back in Feb 1952) not every member of the Commonwealth of Nations were constitutional monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, that both topics are tied together. India's desire & process to become a republic, brought about the creation of the title head of the Commonwealth. GoodDay (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

re. AN

[2]; fwiw, it's "he"; but next time you're not sure you might want to use singular they, which IMHO is better and more natural. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, @RandomCanadian: what pronoun do you prefer? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"fwiw, it's 'he'" was supposed to be an answer to that question. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I shall refer to you as he, him etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard

Thank you for your last response there. I would have responded to you but, of course, the discussion has been locked by (another) patronizing user, using (another) patronizing comment in the top left corner. I can only assume what kind of a person someone called 'High in BC', but, as the old joke goes, when you assume, you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me', so I don't really care about any of this any more. :) NoWikiNoLife (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The RFC is the best route to take, if you're proposing an addition to an article which might have some resistance to it. In the end, the community decides. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Years in Wales

I would just mention that, in order to avoid confusion to readers, any inclusion of the monarch in the Year in Wales, etc, pages would need to include where they are monarch of, e.g. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, George I of Great Britain, Charles I of England and Scotland. This is another good reason for creating a new infobox for the whole UK rather than just tackling the individual countries. I would not oppose such an infobox. Deb (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've no problems with adding in the country names, even though it's redundant when Wales is within those countries. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not redundant, because many people who don't live in Britain (and some who do) will not understand that at all. Deb (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I'll add the 'country' bit, to the Year in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & pre-1922 Ireland articles, too. GoodDay (talk)

@Deb: clarify: You're alright with adding (example) Monarch: George IV. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Only if it appears in a common infobox, not in the individual country articles as such. Deb (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what I can put together on my sandbox. If we're in agreement on the result? an RFC won't be required. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

damn

now I have to look at that page to see the arrow. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: It's like a tv show with 'black bars' on either side. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right. Two n-dashes are much more chic. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup :) GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Police

"All this time, I thought there were just two types of police."

Obviously you have not been to a riot in Paris! To quote Wikipedia "They are primarily involved in general security missions, but the task for which they are best known is crowd and riot control." (Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité). In the 19th century an English man was admiring the wide streets in Paris for the light and the feeling of space they bought to the city only to be told by his French host that they were not built for that, but for the practical reason that it was difficult to build effective barricades across them making it easier for the cavalry to charge a mob (plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose) .-- PBS (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Diacritics

Just a heads up, 2607:FEA8:E2DF:94DC:0:0:0:0/64 has returned and is disregarding WP:NCIH at 2021–22 Ottawa Senators season and possibly other pages. Yowashi (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to say hi Cwater1 (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, have we crossed paths before? GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Think so. Just wanted to say hi Cwater1 (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

unilaterally decide

I'm invincible! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion

You don't appear to have been notified of this request to revert your move. Deb (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It never had an RM to remove "of country" in the article title, to begin with. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

PS - I was away from the 'pedia for a few hours. That's usually when something big happens :( GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

One sentence meta-comments at ANI

Please stop. --JBL (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: & what exactly are you complaining about? GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I am asking you politely to stop making one-sentence meta-comments at ANI. --JBL (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I don't understand. What is a "one-sentence meta-comment"? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A meta-comment is a comment that is meta. Here are some recent examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. If you had not made any of those comments, no one would be the worse, no discussion would have reached a worse outcome, etc. My request is that you consider applying a more stringent "could this be of help or value to anyone?" test to your comments before posting your thoughts at ANI. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't appreciate my pension to not hand out long-winded posts? That's your choice. My recommendation would be that you ignore them & then we'll both be happy. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate short posts with a point much more than I appreciate long posts with a point, and I appreciate short posts with no point much more than I appreciate long posts with no point; but also I appreciate posts of any length with a point more than I appreciate posts of any length without a point. Currently you have 15 or more signed posts on the front page of ANI, and a significant fraction of these comments have no discernible purpose -- that's a very large number, and is much harder to ignore than a single long pointless post would be. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask you to try to cut back. (I also do not think it is unreasonable for you to ask me to ignore your posts, and indeed I will try to do so.) --JBL (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, the word you want is "penchant". --JBL (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that we've agreed to disagree. We shall go our separate ways on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked for clarification, because I read this before and wondered what on earth the complaint was about. I can think of at least one person who spends nearly all his/her time on ANI and other talk pages commenting on other people's actions without ever making an actual, useful contribution to article content. At least you can't be accused of that. Deb (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: Whoever that is, you should politely ask them to stop! One can hope that they will be more receptive than GoodDay was. (Obviously my request had nothing to do with GoodDay's contributions to article content.) Incidentally, I'm not the only person to have indicated that there might be room for improvement recently. --JBL (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

My posts are short, but not snarky. They're straight to the point. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I was perplexed at first. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good Lord! Nonsense personified. The user went after one of my rationales at DRV today so I decided to see where that kind of drama comes from. As my 99 year old grandmother would say, "what rot"...Carry on. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

'Tis an interesting place, indeed. A few months ago, I got growled at for defending 'any' editors choice of what flag or userbox, they wanted on their userpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well in your case Lightburst the drama comes from you making an incredibly shit comment at DRV, with a gratuitous personal attack and no substantive content -- I assure you that if you didn't do that kind of thing, there would be less drama around you. --JBL (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Civilian

I reverted the refactoring of the section headers because the previous verbose sections are now redundant. Also the section Talk:Civilian#Position of the "Colloquial usage" section is about the body of the article not the lead. Salami slicing this seems to be keeping (s)he who has objected previously "on board" so I think that keeping these new sections as sections and not subsetions is preferable. — PBS (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks messy to me. But, it's no longer my concern & so I leave it to you & Mr XX, to manage it. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

About calming folks down

Nguyentrongphu seems sort of excited. Who else is it you find insufficiently calm in the context? Bishonen | tålk 15:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

If folks believe or believed he supported the Holocaust? Then folks would indeed be upset, by his userbox message. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Uh... I think it's more a matter of being respectful, but what do I know? El_C 17:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully, all will work out well. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, apparently it didn't work out well. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not blocked from their talk. —valereee (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:, I'll shall bestow upon them, my wisdom. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What userbox are you talking about? Bishonen | tålk 08:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I meant the message on his userpage. He had to change it to "Holocaust studies enthusiast" or it would've been deleted. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I see the user's been blocked, but the remaining meta Talk page is terribly boastful. Imagine if I went around referring to myself as a "beloved" admin! Deb (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

But I love you, Deb! El C commented on the "beloved" also, but to no effect. The user is altogether quite uninterested in other people's opinions. "It's not my job to please everyone". "Bishonen I do not value your opinion. No thanks". Bishonen | tålk 08:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC).

That's very kind! If only everyone agreed... Deb (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Should we start an RFC? Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I never knew there was a Vietnamese Wikipedia, until a few days ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you can see Vietnamese Wikipedia at the "Tiếng Việt" word in "Wikipedia languages" section on English Wikipedia main page. On behalf of the Vietnamese Wikipedia community, I apologize for some issues related to our sysop in recent days. Sometimes, he has a bit short temper, but actually he is a kind person, he has helped many users in the community and Wikimedia movement. Good day to all. P.T.Đ (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@P.T.Đ: I hope he returns to ENWP, but with more self-control :) GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, but this user is a man (not her) :D P.T.Đ (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Spelling mistake, now corrected. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Image size

I see nothing in WP:ACCIM requiring intro images to be a specific size. Your edits therefore appear to run contrary to MOS:VAR. Is there some other policy I'm missing? I understand that you'd like images to be larger for those with low vision, but it's arbitrary to pick a specific size and change everything to that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Concerning MOS:VAR? I use WP:IAR, on behalf of those with less then perfect eyesight. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of

Please do not delete a {{notinsource}} tag without addressing the underlying problem that the statement attributed does not appear in the source. (I preferred the tag over deletion of the source in case there was a different version of the source &c.) I am also curious as to where your assertion of 'It's the UK's official language' derives (e.g. Act of Parliament), considering Wikipedia's own cited claim that Welsh is 'the only de jure official language in any part of the UK'. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  07:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Driveby comment: my understanding is that in Wales English and Welsh are both de jure official languages (the first sentence of Languages of Wales provides this ref), whereas Parliament has never legislated for English to be the official language of the UK. If "the only de jure official language in any part of the UK" is from Languages of the United Kingdom, the ref there for that statement doesn't actually support it – it's only about the granting of official status to Welsh. Ham II (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make an argument that Welsh is the UK official language & English isn't? Be my guest, at the UK's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course I don't. This is about whether something is a de facto official language (as English is for the UK) or a de jure one (as Welsh is in Wales – but as English is in Wales, too). Ham II (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

All of that's settled at the two articles United Kingdom and Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: You're going to try to convince the community that the UK's official language is welsh, not english? Good luck. GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but I can't find any evidence that English is official, hence the call for better sourcing of the statement in the article. The "Welsh is the only de jure official language" thing crops up on quiz nights at times. —  AjaxSmack  02:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

English is the language used in the British House of Commons & House of Lords, my all MPs & Lords. They don't all use the Welsh language. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sucker for All

I understand what you mean, but these general policy questions are one of the things that needs to be resolved if they are ever to be unblocked; discussing it with them is working to get themself unblocked. As long as we're not discussing making edits to any particular page, there should be no danger of their talk page getting locked for proxy editing. That said, if they don't ask for more input from me, I'm certainly not going to engage further. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You're going to get him blocked from his talkpage, if you persist. He's only allowed to use his talkpage (while blocked) to request an unblock. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

They must take the responsibility for their own actions. I have given up with them. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sucker for All: AfDs are no longer any of your concern. I noticed that you're still mis-using your talkpage, since you've been blocked from Wikipedia. Don't be surprised, if an administrator 'blocks' you from your own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC

Perhaps you could get the ball rolling by either presenting your desired outcome, or if you prefer to remain neutral by trying to accurately summarize the existing opinions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I was planning to remain neutral. But, I'll offer a proposal, to further legitimise the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I've entered a proposal & likewise supported it in the survey. If the others still refuse to participate? It's likely that you & the administrators will have to step in. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Just stopping by

To apologize for my behavior when we last discussed at the talk page of WP:UBX. The thread at WP:ANI reminded me of that and, despite still not agreeing with you on that topic, I shouldn't have spoken to you the way I did. Isabelle ^🔔 01:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: no prob. It's an emotional topic for many folks. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"icewhiz"

what are you talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.234.234 (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

You 'may' know. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Erasurehead

Erasurehead

"Wheelchair-bound erasure" is the best post in the thread. Friends? EEng 23:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: eventually, the politically correct crowd will 'water down' every word or phrase they can find. There's already heavy restrictions on userboxes (expressing your belief in 'man-woman' marriage, is forbidden), so I'm not surprised that 'phrases' & 'words' are being zapped from articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I do think that it's incumbent on us to watch our language in sensitive areas, because how we express things shapes perceptions in subtle ways beyond the information (about a person, say) that we're nominally trying to convey. But this doctrinaire insistence that we purge unpleasantness from something which, undeniably, has its unpleasant features is absurd. EEng 03:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC) P.S. I share your belief in man-woman marriage, though I also believe in other kinds of marriage.

Indeed, but one's not allowed to have certain userboxes. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I was reading a book (about interjections, oddly enough) yesterday which included the phrase “In these days of political correctness…” talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, “That’s not actually anything to do with ‘political correctness’. That’s just treating other people with respect.” Which made me oddly happy. I started imagining a world in which we replaced the phrase “politically correct” wherever we could with “treating other people with respect”, and it made me smile. You should try it. It’s peculiarly enlightening. I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking “Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!” ~ Neil Gaiman.

I wonder @Bastun:, when will the word "politically correct" become banned? GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

THREAT

Thank you for the threat.Juve2000 (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Juve2000: What exactly are you posting about? GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I was reading the wrong page. You can remove that comment if you wish.Juve2000 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Curious. What page did you mean to read @Juve2000: exactly? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Indenting

@Fowler&fowler: & EEng. Sure wish you'd both indent properly, in your posts. Seriously, is it optical problems, cellphone, what? GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Having read your response at the discussion-in-question. You both just don't give a 'bleep' to begin with & are probably being deliberate, now that you both were (twice) asked to stop. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what the problem is. Are we not following the :, ::, :::, sequence? i.e. are we going, :, ::, ::::, ...? Or are we interrupting a sequence out of turn: :, ::, :::, ::::::, ::::, ? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I wish there were a version of Template:interrupted for out of place comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed you're both interrupting the sequence, there. The preview button, isn't an enemy. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Socks, old & new

@ProcrastinatingReader:, you may think me harsh on the topic. But, I've reason to be. I had to earn my way back into the community, the hard way. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems there's a broad spectrum of feelings on the topic, and I see your perspective, but personally I've come to believe it's worth being pragmatic at times. If we failed to notice block evasion for over a decade, and the editor's contributions in that period were non-problematic, in most circumstances it would be entirely punitive to enforce the old block. It's similar to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE: Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved. It might not necessarily be fair, in that the editor gets to escape the block appeal process that others have to follow, but fairness seems like a difficult goal to achieve even in individual cases, never mind maintaining that consistency across different cases. In this case, would it be fair to block an editor after 13 years of productive editing? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

He should be blocked for 'at least' 3 months, for being dishonest with the community for over a decade. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to ones philosophical perspective on the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

So it seems. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wheelchairs

@Valereee: There's nothing more for me to add to the discussion. Looking at the 'survey', it's obvious that some level of restriction is going to be placed on the words "wheelchair bound" & "confined to a wheelchair" being used. Yes, there are indeed reliable sources that avoid those words or request that those words be avoided. I've no interest in helping formulate 'how' to implement any of it. I can see that the RFC result will end up being in favour of 'Yes' & it's nothing that I'm going to stress over. I've no problem with the topic continuing on without me. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

My interest was pure curiosity. I've seen that you are not amenable to any compromise on this, and I was simply interested in trying to understand your point of view. Which you're of course completely entitled not to share if you prefer. I just like to try to understand my colleagues' reasoning when I can. —valereee (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries. PS - Watch a video of George Carlin's views on euphemisms & that'll explain my stance. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've watched that video, after you asked folks to. I believe it was made ~30-40 years ago? Language does change, as does science as we learn new things. Smptoms we first noticed in soldiers fighting trench warfare in the 1910s has since been recognized in places other than wars as a reaction to ongoing intense stress of many kinds, not just being shelled. I don't think it would be accurate to say that an ICU nurse in 2020, even if she showed the same symptoms as a soldier in 1918, was experiencing "shell shock". She was never shelled. She was never in the actual trenches. But she's showing the same symptoms. So now we know it has nothing to do with experiencing being shelled and more to do with experiencing intense ongoing traumatic stress. Why would we want to continue to call it shell shock after we've discovered that term is inaccurate? —valereee (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Carlin's point was that softening language takes the life out of life. As he mentioned in the video, Vietnam War vets might've gotten the treatment they deserved, had their condition been called 'shell shock'. I will not change my stand on the related RFC & because of that, there's nothing more I can add to the discussion there. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

SK

Thank you for your RfC on Stanley Kubrick in which I will not participate, of course (as promised, waste of time). I feel, though, that it is a bit too simple because it doesn't say what kind of infobox. Perhaps offer as a fourth possibility: a short infobox as used in Beethoven, as Brianboulton proposed as identibox (in 2013, see my talk archive), compare Percy Grainger. I miss him, - a man of compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: You may add the fourth option, if you wish. GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't participated in infobox discussions for a long time and it's good for my health. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

November songs

Thank you for understanding! - I focus on recent deaths, DYK? The two on top are on the Main page right now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW: Recommend you cease proxy editing for any banned editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't but that's probably hard to see. Serial and TRM saw it, though. When I take content created in 2009 by German editors, then only translated by an editor who was banned here but not where he translated, how is that "proxy" when all translations - machine or my own - would probably arrive at similar results, but content and references were created by other editors? Translating is a tedious task, and I'm thankful for all the work I didn't have to do myself. I'll be less creative without his help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I've learned (the tough way), that if enough editors are peeved about something I did? They'll likely clamp me down or push me out, if I don't stop doing whatever it is they don't like. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the latest AN thread (for me) quite looks like that, only I didn't look. I talked about health above. It would be so nice if this project were about content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It can be rough at times. My Wikipedian face has figuratively come to resemble that of Staff Sergeant Bob Barnes. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that made me smile ;) - I've been described everything from warrior to angel, and the truth is in the middle. I learned to avoid WP:Great Dismal Swamp, and discussions about taste. I hate when productive 99% content contributors are sent to the desert for the 1% behaviour, but in the latest case failed to be clear enough. Do you know Ray's Rulez? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Haha, #5 was used by Father John Majesky, when he ended an argument with Archie Bunker. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I try not to say when I go by it, because that might be interpreted as an attack, no? I just went over my 2021 production (for other reasons) and got a bit sentimental when seeing the name of LouisAlain, - how many times. We did some great articles together (and many normal ones), and now that's suddenly proxy, - very hard to get used to, I can tell you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In November 2022, he'll be able to ask for re-instatement on the project. That request will likely be approved, if he doesn't use socks between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he'd be interested. Would you want to return to company like we have shown to be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Already went through a 1-year ban & got myself reinstated, under 'strict' conditions, which were successfully repealed & expired. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Good for you. - Sad: Aga Mikolaj died, age 51. Article created by LouisAlain in 2021. Without him, she would not have one in English. At a rate of his usual 3 articles per day, I expect a terrible missing of added information over that year if he'll appeal, and worse if not. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain's mistake was that he wouldn't/didn't stop doing what many editors were asking him to stop doing. He'll have to promise to conform to what the community wants, or they'll not let'em back in. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's something I know too well, and it's exactly why I fear we won't miss around 1,000 articles (in a year), such as the singer's, but even more, and - quoting him and agreeing - that's Wikipedia's loss and not his. He saw it coming in 2018, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If he's choosing to never return. So be it. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As someone interested in content above all, the missing of thousand articles per year is nothing I take easily, but I will have to find a way. Working harder is not an option, there are limits to time and energy. Did you read the article, now on the Main page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find it. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

In the outdented line, or the Main page, still. (Sorry, I thought I had replied, but missed saving, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No prob. At the moment, we've an editor going around adding (without prior consensus) presidential/prime ministerial seals & flags to the bottom of current world leaders infoboxes. He messing up some of them. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop undoing my edits

What makes you think that you must undo evey edit I made?Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hassanjalloh1: read up on WP:BRD, before responding further. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You have no right to undo my edits if you have no reasonable basis or reason to undo them. Just because I'm applying them across different pages doesn't make it wrong! If you can give me one reasonable basis for undoing them then I'll stop.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edits have messed up at least 'two' infoboxe. I've brought the matter up at WP:BLP, for what it's worth. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That was a genuine mistake that was quickly corrected! Haven't you ever made mistakes before during your edits? How would you use that as basis to undo my edits? In fact is an insult to say my edits are "spamming". No reasonable person will look at my edits and consider it "spamming". Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

WT:MOS

Re Special:Diff/1056159026, I'm not seeing anything inherently disruptive about the edit, so, whose sock is this? I helped this user get past an edit filter earlier because I didn't see anything wrong with that edit, either. If it turns out I was tricked into helping an LTA I'd like to self-revert before anyone responds. Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: earlier today on another board, a similar mobile editor made the same type of 3 paragraph long-winded observation. I suspect it's a evading banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Note - A 'new' IP has reverted my revert. GoodDay (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, I would like to kindly ask you to assume good faith, and refrain from making personal attacks without any cause whatsoever. As for the scare quotes insinuating intentional IP hopping, I am the same person who posted earlier, though I don't think I'm the same one you said posted on another page, and know that I have no control over which IP I post from. Thank you. 174.251.160.93 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out it was you on a mobile phone earlier. Do try to stay with one IP or create an account. GoodDay (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

An IP hopper does not magically change from IPv6 to IPv4 though. – The Grid (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It's no longer my concern. Whoever it is, their style of posting (wide gaps between paragraphs) is distracting. GoodDay (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Grid: Yes, they can. In this case it looks like they're using an AT&T residential (?) address and a Verizon Wireless address, both geolocating to central California. The AT&T address is IPv6, and the VZW address is IPv4. So their phone, or their phone's browser, apparently doesn't support IPv6, or is configured not to. That's not suspicious. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Think I'll pass. Too many hoops to jump through, unlike over ten years ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy of Australia

I could revert your disruption @Skyring:, but if you're gonna force another RFC, which 'again' won't end up the way you want? Then I'll start that RFC. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So anyway...

...about that blackjack and the hookers...

(·sᴉɥʇ ǝʇǝʅǝp oʇ ǝǝɹɟ ʅǝǝꓞ ·sǝoɓ ǝʞoꓩ ʎɯ ɹɐɟ ʍoɥ ʎʅʇɔɐxǝ sˌʇɐɥʇ ʻsǝ⅄)

Dufaer (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Words don't frighten me. Including words that are upside down. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm... So you cannot be one of the Order of Ni. You are no seeker of of shrubberies. Or so it would appear! Dufaer (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're posting about. But no prob. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That was a Knights Who Say "Ni!" from Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference. Yup. It was another dumb pop culture reference in-joke. I swear I can also be original, sometimes. Dufaer (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Diacritics

I think it's hilarious you were threatened with a topic ban and accused of tendentiousness and activism for merely stating your opinion. It's downright comical how overblown that guy made it. MarshallKe (talk)

@MarshallKe: For a long time, I was topic-banned from diacritics. A few years ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Noticed that. But still. All you did was state your opinion. They basically just told you to shut up because you're in the minority. Pretty shitty if you ask me. MarshallKe (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@MarshallKe: By the way, where was this statement against me made? By who (don't ping them) & when? GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it was that style guide RfC about alphabetical order. I've lost the link. MarshallKe (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was older than I thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Survey_2 MarshallKe (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes. Well, he & I are getting along better. Sometimes, we disagree on things, but lately we've been agreeing on other things. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Confused

I might be a little harsh to User:2604:3d09:37f:e110:24fd:9299:48a4:b674 (don't want to ping him), but most of the edits he's making are unnecessary and weird, and in the 2021 Canadian federal election article he split the lead into four paragraphs.

If you could, I'd like you to do a bit of a quick scan on his contributions and give me your opinion. I've already done a scan and I'd like other editors to tap into this.

Sigh...Wikipedia stresses me out sometimes...:(

Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

IP's being troublesome. We'll see what the folks at WP:CANADA say. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Back at you

@Buffs: You just peeved me off & I don't forget. I was in your corner, but not anymore. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Lars Brygmann

Hello GoodDay, you are engaged in an edit war with me on the Lars Brygmann page. I didn't find the changes you made to be necessary (removing a line break and linking Danish people). You may have a case for why these edits are useful, but you have taken the wrong approach to proving it. As an experienced editor, you must surely be aware that the correct protocol on Wikipedia is not to simply reintroduce material that another editor has removed but rather to discuss it on the talk page. I encourage you to do so. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no edit war @Revirvlkodlaku:. But, if you're that determined to keep out the Danish link, then fine. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Year in Wales

These mass changes go against the outcome of the RfC. Stop now if you don't want to find yourself at ANI. Deb (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: He ruled that the Year in Place articles are to be consistent & you're going against his decision. I fear that you're exhibiting ownership issues with the Year in Wales articles, tbh. For goodness sake, listen to yourself. You're threatening me with an WP:ANI report. Indeed, your 'aggressive' approach & tone, has become quite chilling. PS: Very disappointed in your recent approach to this topic, post-RFC. GoodDay (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing inconsistent about the Year in Wales articles. They have an Incumbents section. Frankly, I've been shocked by your intransigence and refusal to consider the alternative solutions. All you're doing is causing a lot of unnecessary work. Deb (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the monarchs, per the RFC closer's ruling. Furthermore, I've asked an administrator to keep an eye on the closed RFC. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A new problem

User:WanukeX (don't want to ping him) has made some pretty unconstructive edits (e.g. he mentions random politicians entering parliament during the election on the lead) on, for example, 1988 Canadian federal election and 2004 Canadian federal election. I've reverted all of his edits now but just a heads up he might start an edit war. Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, it semes like he butchered every single election article from 1867 to 2004 (reverted all of them now)...Wiki stresses me out sometimes :( Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned his full speed ahead approach, at WP:CANADA. Hopefully, he isn't edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, thank you, however, it looks like Wanuke will probably revert my reverts (as he has already reverted reverts on 45th Canadian federal election). I may have to warn him and report him. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already reverted him, there. PS: You don't have to ping me, at my own talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you get notifications on your talk page even when I don't ping you? Or do you just occasionally check? Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

When anybody contacts me on my talkpage. An orange bar appears at the top of my screen. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, seems like Wanuke isn't so bad after all :) He admitted his mistakes on WP:Canada. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hats & Article titles

@OgamD218: & @SPECIFICO:, let an outsider decide on hatting or un-hatting. Meanwhile, I'm considering recommending that the American Presidency of name article titles, be changed to Name Administration. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay,It is not helpful to have involved editors counting votes in the middle of what's now an RfC and the long diversions into irrelevant posts unrelated to the content issue are properly hatted -- it has nothing to do with an "outsider" doing it, and I'm disappointed to see you raise what sounds like a false equivalence between off-topic speculation and personal attacks on the one hand and hatting such clutter to make the RfC easier for editors to parse and participate. Hatting is common in such instances. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Look at the previous RFC - which has 'survey' & 'discussion' subsections. It's the standard structure. But then, making an ongoing discussion into an RFC, tends to be messy. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I haven't personally attacked anyone. BTW - I'm in celebration mode, as the world will (at 04:00, 30 November 2021) have one less monarchy & one more republic. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, I just saw your 11/30 post. Who said you personally attacked anyone? In the future i hope you will read more carefully before commenting. Anyway, Ogam has repeatedly posted PAs against various editors on that page but seems to have stopped, at least for now. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That's cool. Don't stress over it, as I don't. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Boris

I see you recapitalized "Prime Minister" ("serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom...") in Boris Johnson. Then shouldn't prime minister be capitalized in articles such as Justin Trudeau and Scott Morrison? I saw your edit summary too but I still don't quite understand. Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

When there's no "the" or "#th" before the office. It can be capitalised. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Replies

Hi GoodDay! I saw your reply on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Scantydu and wanted to let you know that you should not leave a space before your reply due to problems it creates for some screen readers. For more information, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Indentation and screen readers. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: Spacing is required, when different posts are indented the same. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The talk page guideline that I linked says there should be "no extra spaces between replies", and refers to WP:LISTGAP (which has a demonstration). Even when different posts are indented the same amount, they should not have a space between them, because this ends a list and creates a new one. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

When there's no spacing. Two separate posts, can be mistaken as one post. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, GoodDay. I hope you don't mind me (talk page stalker) butting in here. I spend waaay too much of my time trying to fix LISTGAP and MOS:INDENTGAP problems, so maybe it'll help to chime in with a couple of points.

Point 1: While I understand your point about separate posts being mistaken as one post, in fact, regular browsers don't show any difference between the two formatting styles. That is, your post (I assume you're talking about the one at 4:22 on 9 December) looks the same to me in its original form and after Tol fixed it. The difference is in the rendered HTML, which can add a bunch of extraneous tags that are tedious for screen-reader users to deal with.

Point 2: The thing that separates posts is our signatures. Tol's sig includes some light pink text and a datestamp. Yours includes your name in blue and a datestamp. Mine is in blue italics with a long dash and a datestamp. This separation doesn't disturb users of screen readers, doesn't add extra HTML because the li/dd markup is correct (and even the most complex sig formatting is going to be there anyway), and is conformant with MOS:INDENTGAP/MOS:LISTGAP. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll just add an extra indent, between my post & the preceding one. That should help. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Only if you're actually replying to that comment, though. Otherwise you're confusing people again. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 16:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Puzzled

Sorry if I'm keep asking a lot of questions these days, but you are one of the few Canadian Wikipedians who are active on their talk page.

Anyways, Rjensen (won't ping him) is making some...interesting edits. He's adding a whole lot of stuff on John A. Macdonald. He also added a huge quote on William Lyon Mackenzie King and deleted a lot of stuff too (I reverted his deletion though). Thoughts? Should we be concerned about his massive edits that haven't gotten consent by WP:Canada? Or am I overreacting? Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinged him at WP:CANADA. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...I might feel a bit regretful about my reverts. This guy, Richard J. Jensen is actually a historian, so maybe he knows what he's doing. But regardless, thanks for posting about his edits on WP:Canada. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

If that's him. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Interim capitalization

Shouldn't Amita Kuttner's title of interim leader of the Green Party also be capitalized (first paragraph of lead).

Also shouldn't interim leader on Rona Ambrose ("Canadian former politician who was interim leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the Opposition between 2015 and 2017") be capitalized as well? Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Not in Kuttner's or Ambrose's cases, as those are sentence form (see WP:JOBTITLES). -- GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Follow up question from WP:NOT

You answered one of my questions, on the paradox of intolerance. But you didn't answer the other. Are there any behaviours that you consider beyond the pale (completely unacceptable if you aren't familiar with the idiom)? You don't need to state specifically what they are, a yes/no would suffice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If someone's going around the 'pedia (via editing articles or via talkpages) promoting (examples) murder, pedophilia, pro-violence? it's best they be shown the door. The project frowns on being used for agendas. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)